In Re Mirando

California Court of Appeal Jul 14, 1936 No. Crim. 1514Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the City Court of the City of Vacaville had jurisdiction over the petitioner's case because the record did not support the claim of a prior conviction, and a judgment of conviction cannot be impeached by evidence outside the record.

Issues

Whether the City Court of the City of Vacaville lacked jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner for a violation of section 502 of the California Vehicle Code.
Whether a judgment of conviction and commitment may be impeached by evidence outside the record in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Disposition. Writ denied and prisoner remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The undisputed record discloses the fact that the City Court of the City of Vacaville had jurisdiction of the charge of which the petitioner was convicted and imprisoned.”

“The question of jurisdiction must be determined by the record in the case, and if jurisdiction is thereby shown, extrinsic evidence cannot be allowed to contradict it.”

THOMPSON, J.

habeas corpus

the petitioner asserts that he is illegally restrained of his liberty because the City Court of the City of Vacaville, Solano County, was without jurisdiction to try or sentence him under the provisions of section 502 of the California Vehicle Code for the reason that he had been previously convicted of a similar offense in another inferior court, which former conviction fixed his penalty in the last case at imprisonment in the county jail-“for not less than ninety days nor more than one year”, and under the provisions of section 1425, subdivision 2:

“Justices’ Courts of Class B shall have jurisdiction in all criminal cases amounting to misdemeanor only, punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Vacaville• City Court has the same jurisdiction as Justices’ Courts of Class B. (See Cal. Jur. Supp., vol. 6, p. 840.)

The entire record of the city court is before us, including the docket, the commitment and the minutes of the trial of the petitioner. The complaint merely charges the accused under the provisions of section 502 of the California Vehicle Code with driving a vehicle on the public highway while he was “under the influence of intoxicating liquor”. The defendant pleaded guilty, waived time for pronouncing judgment and was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Solano County for a period of 30 days. The record fails to show that the petitioner was ever previously convicted of a similar offense or of any other offense. No evidence was offered on this hearing to that effect. If it be true that he was formerly convicted of a similar offense, the attention of the trial court was not called to that fact. The undisputed record discloses the fact that the City Court of the City of Vacaville had jurisdiction of the charge of which the petitioner was convicted and imprisoned.

habeas corpus,

where the record shows without conflict that an inferior court has jurisdiction of the person and the

[445]

In Re Mirando

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief